# Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson

> Supreme Court of the United States · May 26, 1952 · 343 U.S. 495

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9420755

## Case

- **Full name:** JOSEPH BURSTYN, INC. v. WILSON, COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION OF NEW YORK, Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** May 26, 1952
- **Citations:** 343 U.S. 495; 1 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1357; 72 S. Ct. 777; 96 L. Ed. 2d 1098; 96 L. Ed. 1098; 1952 U.S. LEXIS 2796
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Reed
- **Judges:** Clark, Reed, Frankfurter, Jackson, Burton
- **Cited by:** 698 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9420755

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- recognizing that movies are a significant medium for the communication of ideas because “[t]hey may affect public attitudes and behavior in a variety of ways, ranging from direct espousal of a political or social doctrine to the subtle shaping of thought which characterizes al…
- explaining that “the liberty of speech and of the press which the First Amendment guarantees against abridgment by the federal government is within the liberty safeguarded by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from invasion by state action.”
- describing protected mediums of expression as “organ[s] of public 26 opinion” that “may affect public attitudes and behavior in a variety of ways, ranging from direct espousal of a political or social doctrine to the subtle shaping of thought which characterizes all artistic e…
- concluding “that expression by means of motion pictures is included within the free speech and free press guaranty of the First and Fourteenth Amendments”
- finding that motion pictures are a form of expression similar to books, newspapers, and magazines despite being published and sold for profit

## Opinion text

Mr. Justice Reed,
concurring in the judgment of the Court.
Assuming that a state may establish a system for the licensing of motion pictures, an issue not foreclosed by the Court’s opinion, our duty requires us to examine the facts of the refusal of a license in each case to determine *507 whether the principles of the First Amendment have been honored.- This film does not seem to me to be of a character that the First Amendment permits a state to exclude from public view.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9420755. Public record. Not legal advice.